Answer

In my view, suffering has no purpose, because it is a side effect (an unavoidable one). The Holy One, blessed be He, created the world to operate according to fixed laws (I can speculate about the reason. Without that, we would not be able to function in it. Maybe there are other reasons too), and apparently there is no system of laws that would produce what He wants (like the current laws do) without the suffering that comes along with it. That is why there is suffering. I elaborate on this in the new trilogy.
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
Beyond the physical aspect of suffering, there is also the psychological aspect (that is, how we experience it). I think it would have been possible to create a human being in such a way that if a certain force were applied to him, he would feel less suffering than he feels today, and yet the Holy One, blessed be He, created us in such a way that we feel suffering intensely in certain situations.
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
How do you know that? The Holy One, blessed be He, wanted human beings to have this function or that one, and among them emotion. It may be that feelings of suffering are a side effect of our emotional makeup.
——————————————————————————————
Amir Hozeh:
Why not simply say that suffering exists so that there will be a consequence to our actions? You expanded on the importance of consequences for our actions in your article about the sovereign person versus the rabbinic person; it seems to me that this is a sufficient answer. Put simply, if there is no bad consequence for something bad that I do, then in practice my evil has no meaning.
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
In principle that is possible, but there is a problem, because apparently my suffering is not the result of a bad act. So what lesson are we supposed to learn from it?
——————————————————————————————
Amir Hozeh:
You can divide all the suffering that happens to us into three entities that cause it: myself, society (other human beings), and the environment, meaning animals, bacteria, tsunamis, and everything included in that. As for why the Holy One, blessed be He, created a world in which I myself am capable of causing myself suffering, that is pretty well explained in the first response I wrote (if I don’t suffer from bad decisions I make, then in what sense are they bad, and what meaning do they have?). As for why the Holy One, blessed be He, allowed a world in which I can suffer, even though I did nothing wrong, because of other people, the answer is probably similar. Suppose I am incapable of causing suffering to someone else. Then either I am capable only of causing him happiness or benefit, or I am incapable of affecting him at all. In both cases, my choices and actions when directed outward, toward the society in which I live, are meaningless—whether I am incapable of affecting others at all, or whether I can affect them but only for the good.
As for why the Holy One, blessed be He, allowed our environment to cause us suffering, from the theological side it seems more likely that one of two options is true: either He is settling accounts with us for reasons of reward and punishment, say, or—and this seems more correct to me—He intentionally gave us a world that is not ideal for living in, so that we could repair it and turn it into a world fit for living in, and thereby be responsible for, and deserving of, a world that really is ideal for living in, truly a Garden of Eden, and that world would not be given to us for free.
You argued that suffering is a byproduct of a deterministic system of laws. If we refer only to the last possibility, suffering caused by the environment, it does not seem to me that the Holy One, blessed be He, would have any problem creating a deterministic world without suffering that depends purely on the environment itself. Why did He have to create bacteria and viruses, or tsunamis or tornadoes or mountains that spew lava, in order for us to be able to function within a system of fixed laws? Let Him make all the mountains ordinary. I don’t see how that would interfere with normal, non-chaotic life—maybe even the opposite. If all the mountains were normal and did not spew lava at undefined intervals and destroy an entire city, I would be able to function better without fear of chaos and inconsistency. I’m saying this while knowing that the eruption of that volcano is probably deterministic, but it does not create lawfulness in the same sense that you meant would help us live normal lives.
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
I didn’t understand what you were saying. I argued that the suffering caused to us is not connected to bad actions we did (except perhaps to bad actions of those who caused us the suffering). Even the suffering I cause myself is not because of some bad act of mine, but because of a foolish act. I didn’t understand what you are arguing against.
As for the ability to create another system of laws without suffering but with everything else, we disagree. So if you think otherwise, find your own answer for why there is natural suffering in the world. My answer is this one. In your words I did not find an answer to that.
By the way, lava coming out of a mountain is definitely connected to the lawfulness that enables us to live. Scientific research helps us predict eruptions and be careful. Just recently there were tsunami warnings in the United States and Cuba, and many people were saved because of them. If it happened not according to laws, it would be hard for us to function (though of course we also wouldn’t need to, because the Holy One, blessed be He, would take care of us). But all this is a rather unnecessary discussion, as I said.
——————————————————————————————
Amir Hozeh:
The question, as I understand it from the questioner, is why suffering exists in the world, and that is what I tried to answer in my response by dividing it into the three entities capable of causing us suffering: the self, society, and nature. It seems to me that we mainly disagree about why the Holy One, blessed be He, allowed nature to cause us suffering, but I still felt the need to explain my view about giving that ability to the other two factors as well. I think you didn’t understand my words because the word “environment” can be understood either as the people around me or as natural forces. I meant natural forces—environment in that sense.
So that you won’t have to read the whole response again, I’ll just copy what I wrote: “As for why the Holy One, blessed be He, allowed our environment [natural forces] to cause us suffering, from the theological side it seems more likely [in my humble opinion, more than what you proposed] that one of two options is true: either He is settling accounts with us for reasons of reward and punishment, say, or—and this seems more correct to me—He intentionally gave us a world that is not ideal [with suffering] for living in [to live in], so that we would be given the possibility of repairing it and turning it into a world fit for living in, and thereby be responsible and deserving [the main reason is deservingness] of a world that really is ideal for living in, truly a Garden of Eden, and that world would not be given to us for free.” I added square brackets in places where I had expressed myself unclearly.
I hope it is clearer what I meant.

Now regarding your response to my remark, I don’t think I really understood what you meant. You wrote to me about scientists saving people by issuing tsunami warnings. You also argue, as I understand it, that the Holy One, blessed be He, created a deterministic system of laws in which He no longer intervenes, so that we would have a basis on which to make choices, because without lawfulness it is really impossible to know how to act.
What I did not understand is how the existence of tsunamis, and scientists saving people through those warnings, fits with the reasoning of yours that I mentioned above. If the purpose of the Holy One, blessed be He, was to enable us to act with confidence in our deeds—if I do x, y will probably happen—
then certainly we need a deterministic system of laws in which the Holy One, blessed be He, does not intervene any longer (up to this point I agree with the claim), but not every deterministic system of laws equals a system of laws that is convenient or even possible to function in in such a way that I know that if I do x, y will happen. If the system is too complex, then even if it is deterministic, that doesn’t really help me.
Therefore, even though that tsunami was destined to happen two thousand years ago as well, if the system is too complex it will be hard for me, and sometimes even impossible, to plan what to do.
It seems more likely to me that those scientists who saved people from the tsunami did so not because the world we live in is easy to understand (and I am pretty sure they still have not reached the point where they know with complete certainty that there will be a tsunami), but despite the difficulty involved.
In addition, I do not know at what point, according to your view, the Holy One, blessed be He, stopped intervening in the world, but it seems to me that it was long before the impressive predictive capacities of science. Therefore it seems to me that the rescue of those people should be credited more to the scientists’ labor than to the system of laws—deterministic though it may be—in which we live.
One final note: let’s say the scientists saved those people because the Holy One, blessed be He, placed us in a deterministic world. That still does not answer why create such a world with tsunamis in it in the first place. It sounds more like a nuisance than a necessary condition for the existence of a deterministic system of laws in the world. Couldn’t the Holy One, blessed be He, have created a deterministic world in which I know how I should act in order to achieve certain goals, without tsunamis? Fine, if we at least had some way to protect ourselves from them, or if it were something we could use for our benefit, like fire, say—but it seems this is just a natural disaster where the only way to cope with it is to run away from it. And tsunami is just one example among many.
Sorry for the length; still, I hope you’ll read this.
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
I still don’t understand. Does the result depend on our actions? I do not observe that good deeds prevent suffering or improve the state of the world in terms of suffering. Medical research does that irrespective of good deeds. That is the starting point of the discussion, and you keep ignoring it.

The withdrawal from the world, like scientific progress, happens gradually. There is no moment when it happened. The withdrawal also caused scientific progress. When there are no prophets and no divine involvement, one has to rely on ourselves and solve the problems on our own.

I’ll explain my general outlook again.
A. The Holy One, blessed be He, decided, for reasons of His own, that the world would run according to a rigid system of laws without interventions (I assume that perhaps the reason is to allow us to function within it, but that is not important).
B. This system of laws must bring about the general and large-scale results that He wants.
C. There is no system that would bring about those results and be simpler, or without the side effects of suffering.
D. Therefore, the only alternative for preventing suffering is either to make another system of laws, but then it will not bring about the major outcomes that are important to Him, or it will contain no less suffering. He can of course also give up and make a world that is run by moment-to-moment providence rather than according to laws. But that contradicts A.
Therefore He made these laws, and therefore there is suffering.

Now if you disagree, please tell me at exactly which point you disagree.
——————————————————————————————
Amir Hozeh:
I’ll try to explain my intention again. I argued that the reason there is suffering in the world caused by nature is one of two things: either as punishment (I don’t really believe this, but it is a possibility), or so that we can complete through our actions an incomplete world. I’ll repeat it again: so that we will be the ones who repair the world and bring it to completion with our own hands. That’s it—that is my argument. I disagree with you on the following point: that there is a necessary connection between a deterministic system of laws and suffering in the world, and therefore there is suffering in the world as a byproduct. I argue that suffering is not a necessary condition but something essential, and that the world was deliberately made this way, with suffering in it. But I do not claim, primarily, that that suffering is a consequence of our actions; on the contrary, our actions are what have the power to prevent suffering, and there is value in that. Enough value that it would be worthwhile to create suffering in the world in the first place. According to your view, suffering is something we fight against simply because we have no choice, due to circumstances—just some annoying thing that had to exist as a necessary condition for a rigid system of laws. I, by contrast, see the suffering caused to us by natural forces as something that happens when one lives in an imperfect world, whether its system of laws is fixed or not. Therefore, in repairing that world into a more perfect one—for example, doctors developing medicines or scientists warning about a tsunami—there is value and meaning for us as human beings, and that is why the Holy One, blessed be He, chose to place us in such a world. Just as a thought experiment: suppose suffering is only a necessary condition for a rigid system of laws and nothing more. Now let us ask ourselves: when was there more suffering—before they found a cure for disease x, or afterward? Or is there no change? It seems to me that before they found the cure there was more suffering, and now there is less. Did that prevent the system from being rigid and deterministic? The answer is no. Therefore there is an amount of suffering—even a little suffering disappearing is enough for me to claim that I do not agree with the necessity of suffering—that is not necessary. And if that is the case, then why was it there in the first place?
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
Perhaps. But I don’t see how a tsunami can be prevented. Well, maybe in the future we will be able to do something about that too.
But as for myself, I was not persuaded. Why do diseases need to be cured by us? Better not to cause them in the first place.

——————————————————————————————
Amir Hozeh:

You can generalize that question to all the disasters that happen in the world: earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, epidemics, diseases, cancer, and more. You said it is better not to create those disasters in the first place. Better in what sense? If it is better so that we suffer less, then I agree. But is it better that we suffer less—in other words, that we enjoy a world repaired not by us? In my humble opinion, no. Now you may think the opposite of me, and that too would sound reasonable—that it is better that we not suffer from all the things I mentioned above. But then the theological question arises: what are we suffering for? You answered that suffering is a necessary byproduct of the system of laws in which we live, and there I disagreed with you. I also admit—perhaps this did not come across—that the suffering is caused by that system of laws and the initial conditions that existed when that system of laws went into effect. However, I do not see this suffering as a side effect. Theologically it is much more plausible to say that it is essential and was made intentionally, because logically there is no obstacle to creating a rigid system of laws without all those disasters—you just need to create a more stable system in our terms, with the appropriate initial conditions. And if you say it is a side effect and not for some purpose, then you have impaired God’s omnipotence for no apparent reason. I qualify this by saying that if you manage to show real necessity—logical necessity—then clearly you are right. Until then, we have no choice but to assume that the Holy One, blessed be He, did not create suffering for no reason, for all else being equal, it would clearly have been better without it.

——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
The disagreement remains in place. We’ve exhausted it.